The
Lockheed Martin F-35 program is a vast undertaking and will
eventually see the fighter jets sold to countries all around the
world. The question at this time is how many of the aircraft that
were originally ordered by the various partner countries will
actually be purchased and shipped once the aircraft are
operational.

The F-35B STOVL version of the fighter has had
some serious issues of late that have prevented testing flights
and STOVL
operations entirely. The latest snag in the program comes as
word that partner country Britain is changing
its mind on the purchase of F-35B aircraft and going with
the conventional F-35C carrier version of the fighter.

The
reason for the U.K.'s move to the F-35C version of the aircraft rather
than the STOVL version is that plans for building two new carriers
are in flux. As it stands, Britain's carriers are not capable of
working with allied French and U.S. naval fighters because the
British warships lack the catapult and arresting gear for carrier
take off and landings required by allied aircraft.

Not
surprisingly, this is unwelcome news to Lockheed Martin. "We
will work closely with the U.K.'s Ministry of Defence to assess the
impact of any reductions to the program and to support their
decision,” said the company in a statement to Defense News.

The
first hint that Britain might be having second thoughts on the F-35B
came this week when the foreword
to a new national security strategy written by Prime Minister
David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg was published. The
foreword complained that the two carriers the Royal Navy were set to
construct "… [are] unable to operate with the aircraft of our
closest allies."

Britain is looking to make defense
spending cutbacks and fitting its new carriers with the catapult and
arrestor gear that would allow the ship to work with U.S. and French
planes would be cheaper and offer more capability. A Ministry of
Defense spokesman said that the change to a conventional carrier
would make the new carrier, "cheaper, deliver more capability
and go further."

Britain is also considering changing the
second of the 65,000-ton carriers to an amphibious helicopter role
rather than a standard carrier. The second carrier could also be
eliminated altogether. The carrier currently under construction was
originally designed for catapult and arrestor gear to be added later
if needed. The F-35C has already been purchased by Britain in small
numbers for test and evaluation. The U.S. Navy is currently the only
confirmed buyer of the F-35C.

Britain was set to make a final
decision on buying more of the STOVL fighters next year and had
originally planned to buy 150 F-35B fighters – the number was later
reduced to 138 and could go even lower. Construction of the first of
the new British carriers is underway with the ship set to enter
service in 2016.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Landing where you want is useful, but the extra weight making the difference between surviving and being shot down is also not useful.

Does the F-35 have a rough field capability? (Prob not)

I am also interested in FOD sucked into the engine on VTOL...

I would like to think Lockheed Martin would have considered it in design, but knowing Lockheed Martin, they are almost certainly saving that little issue for a follow on work package (worth big $$$$) from your DoD.

The harriers might not have, but the Argentines weren't really the gold standard of Air Force performance, and the other ships that could've had a better chance if their air cover was faster did have problems, usually bombs, and usually enough to sink them. A faster plane with more fuel (and the two are in many ways tied, since a plane with more fuel can spend more time at higher speed) means the air wing can cover a bigger area and guard its escorts better. This is less of a concern with modern anti-air systems, but still worth considering along with the greater number of targets that can be hit by strike missions. Fuel is a major problem as well as landing weight.